John Perry Asks: "Speaker Pelosi, Does the Oath of Office Matter?"

I have met twice with my Congressman Jay Inslee on the subeject of inpeachment. Additionally I continue to press him on the issue throught letters. I have included some of this correspondence:

Letters on Congressional complicit behavior
(Most are to Jay Inslee through Patrick Hogan at his district office)

Jay Inslee has actively suppressed efforts on executive impeachment:

Seattle Times article - February 26, 2007 6:55 AM
D.C. Dems want to stop legislative impeachment talk
Posted by David Postman
Sen. Patty Murray and Congressman Jay Inslee are lobbying legislators to cancel this week's hearing on a resolution calling on Congress to investigate and consider impeaching President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Inslee and Murray, both Democrats who voted against the war, think state lawmakers holding hearings and voting on impeachment is a distraction from what Democrats are doing in Congress, including their efforts to end the war.

Letters -

Wed 8/6/2008
History will not be kind to this Congress lll

Patrick,

There are so many different avenues for impeachment - could it be that Congress cannot decide on moving forward because they can't agree on which offense to pursue?

Never mind...enough stupid humor.

Disbelief in this Congress will find its own course, and in the end, Jay may find himself re-elected despite his stance... That does not however erase his complicit behavior. I personally would not want to go to my grave with that on my conscience.

I still stand by my observation that somehow the DNC or Pelosi herself are jointly or individually to blame for this situation. Can the Democratic party be coalesced on one issue such as this? Absolutely. Let us not forget the individuals who were briefed on torture in the Congressional Intelligence Committee and the idea that it went ahead makes them complicit for not voicing dissent. War crimes are a good incentive for not pursuing open investigation on a president when you may also be legally responsible for not stopping the crimes, or worse, flat out approving them. This is why we have ongoing statements like "impeachment is off the table" and "show me the goods". History will have footnotes to the veracity of Pelosi's position.

Another plausible explanation why this Congress is AWOL on impeachment is that they are scared. After all, this is a bunch of thugs who are vengeful to a degree not witnessed by the American public before. Does Jay fear for his future, his career, his safety? I doubt it.

While you may want me to think cynically that the Democratic Party cannot be organized, I take issue, because I have seen it before. Without a vote, without a hearing, using all the empty excuses possible, this Congress has shirked its Constitutional mandate and - added together with all of the other shortcomings of the last 2 years - has left the American public with empty hope and a total lack of trust in government. Our Constitutional form of government, our Democracy is at risk, and no one but a few in Congress will admit it.

Sad times indeed.

I wish Jay all the best with his re-election campaign. He'll understand if I sling some stingers in his direction through the press. He leaves me with little choice.

August 05, 2008
Is Democracy dead yet?

Jay and Patrick,

I have a very difficult time with what Congress is doing to our Democracy. I hate thinking about the world my children will have as adults. The Bush administration on its own did a pretty thorough job of marginalizing the Constitution, but the Congress helped the process along by not exercising their mandate to handle such a rogue administration. Congress is complicit and along those lines may have marginal ability in the future to put down this insidious situation again. What does that leave my kids with?

I only became politically active in the last three years because I couldn't sit back and watch the wholesale destruction of constitutional government while raising a family. It is incongruent. Congress' response to this administration is out of character and incongruent. The whole thing smells. I don't know why this happened, I just know this sort of thing is unprecedented and should not be happening. That is enough to sway my vote in November just to get rid of whatever is causing this insidious disease of what should be a representative and constitutional government. Right now it is neither.

I will keep voting out the incumbent until the disease recedes.

Tue 8/5/2008
Urgent!

Patrick,

I have just one question for Jay for which I am owed an honest, direct and concise answer - from him and not staff.

Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and the rest of Congress (excluding those who pursued impeachment) have taken away the only legal tool by extension of representation the American public have to remove a rogue unlawful president. This is mandated by the Constitution, it is a sworn congressional duty.

Jay: What gives you or any of these other folks the right to take away that tool? (question prefaced by above correct statements)

As a constituent who voted for Jay several times I DEMAND a timely answer. This is Constitutional law - politics has no place. The situation demands adherence to the Law. You represent, but your representation does not remove you from your responsibility to serve the people of your Congressional district.

Congressional Impotence - history will not be kind (to Jay through Patrick Hogan)
Tue 5/27/2008
Is the Democratic Congress Complicit? Is Pelosi guilty?
Without trials, this Congress will have commited the ultimate crime against it's own constituents. The citizens of these United States deserve far, far better representation. I am disgusted with anyone who has attempted to block impeachment by pushing it away or sidestepping the issue. Yes, that includes Jay.
Robert Duvall

Letter to Ed Schultz
Tue 10/16/2007

Pelosi's Folly

Hey Ed,

Congress is the elected voice of the citizens. It is the responsibility of the Congress to act against the Executive if it falls outside of the law or outside of the constraints put on the office of the Executive by the constitution. Anyone in Congress can initiate the process of impeachment. This is the way it is set up.

Since when is it up to the Speaker to decide whether this can actually occur. What right does the Speaker have to stop a constitutional process. What right does the Speaker have to solely DETERMINE what is impeachable and what is not impeachable, an erroneously claimed right she publicly stated on your program?

Nancy Pelosi owes America an apology for her misuse of her position as Speaker in this specific regard. She owes America an apology for allowing the political gains for 2008's election to overcome the constitutional right of the Congress to initiate impeachment.

She should step down.

I have met twice with my representative Jay Inslee - a good guy if you exclude impeachment of the Executive. Both meetings, one a private meeting on 333 with a very well educated group, and the other a public forum, were hot on the impeachment issue. Jay absolutely refuses to consider this sort of path.

How much influence has this Speaker had on the members of Congress? After all, Jay did go after Gonzales but stops way short of Executive impeachment. To what degree did her five word statement squelch any possibility of impeachment? SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXERCISE THE CONGRESS ON THIS ISSUE. SHAME ON HER, AND SHAME ON THOSE IN CONGRESS WHO BLINDLY FOLLOW HER.

For those who are brave enough to go against the supposed leadership on this, THEY ARE SERVING THE CONSTITUENTS NOT JUST OF THEIR DISTRICTS, BUT OF THE DISTRICTS COUNTRY WIDE WHOSE VOICE HAS BEEN SQUELCHED BY THEIR OWN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

That is something to praise, isn't it?

Shame on Congress for allowing this to happen. It is the lowest point of a Congress I can remember; I am 50 years old this year.

You should not feel the need to answer Pelosi's challenge to you and your listeners to come up with offenses that would be deemed impeachable. SHE IS NOT THE DECIDER ON THIS. She needs to be called publicly for her false and fraudulent use of her position. I have done so in letters; I doubt those get through the filters. I will go on air stating this - given an opportunity. Or you can. It just needs to be said.

Auntie Nan knows deep down in her black blood pumping heart of hers, that the only thing that matters to her is her war profiteering, her stock portfolio climbing exponentially, her blood soaked paws of hers, coated in the blood of more than a million Iraqi's who died so this murdering son of a bitch over here could steal their motherfucking oil, and the Military Industrial Complex feeding at the trough and raiding the Treasury, stealing future generations of American's vitality and their life right out of the nation.

that's all that matters to Auntie Nan. her blood crusted, rotting flesh fingers, holding onto a sack of sheckels she garnered by selling her fucking soul to the Military Industrial Complex...

Aunt Nan is a true capitalist. A symbol of the free market system. Of death and destruction ad infinitum........